05 1157     / 


The   best   things   come   on   Do-ves'  feet — Nietzsche 


Woman  Suffrage 

The  Child-Bearing  Woman  and 
Civilization 


A  Lecture  Delivered  Before 
the  Independent  Religious 
Society.  Orchestra  Hall, 
Michigan  Ave.  and  Adams, 
Chicago,  Sunday  at  II  A.  M. 


By 
M.  M.  MANGASARIAN 


Mangasarian's  Publications 

The  Martyrdom  of  Hypatia. 

Morality  Without  God. 

How  the  Bible  Was  Invented. 

The  Rationalism  of  Shakespeare. 

Bryan  on  Religion. 

Christian  Science  Analyzed  and  An- 
swered. 

What  Was  the  Religion  of  Shake- 
speare ? 

Debate  with  a   Presbyterian.     Pre- 
lude :     Roosevelt. 

Christian     Science — A     Comedy     in 
Four  Acts. 

The    Kingdom    of    God    in    Geneva 
Under  Calvin. 

\Voman  Suffrage,  or  the  Child-Bear- 
ing  Woman  and  Civilization. 
10  Cents  per  Copy 


Pearls — Brave  Thoughts  from  Brave 

Minds. 
The    Mangasarian-Crapsey    Debate 

on  the  Historicity  of  Jesus. 
25  Cents  per  Copy 


A  New  Catechism — Revised  and  en- 
larged, with  portrait  of  author.  In 
cloth,  $1.00. 


Order  Through  the 

Independent    Religious    Society 

Orchestra    Hall    Building,    Chicago 


Stack 
Annex 


4/3 
OToman  Suffrage 


Cfjtl&^Bcanng  ZUUoman  anb  Ctotfoation 

There  appears  to  be  need  of  some  bold  man  who  specially 
honors  plainness  of  speech,  and  will  say  what  is  best  for  the  city 
and  citizens,  ordaining  what  is  good  for  the  whole  state,  amid  the 
corruptions  of  human  souls,  opposing  the  mightiest  lusts,  and 
having  no  man  his  helper  but  himself,  standing  alone  and  follow- 
ing reason  only. — PLATO. 

The  history  of  civilization  is  the  history  of  sex  relations. 
Between  man  and  woman  there  has  always  been  a  struggle 
for  leadership.  There  was  a  time  when  woman  commanded, 
and  man  obeyed.  In  the  matriarchal  age  a  man  could  not 
hold  property,  and  the  children  were  named  after  the  mother. 
This  supremacy  has  been  lost;  from  a  position  of  independ- 
ence woman  has  come  to  be  dependent  on  man.  The  Woman 
Suffrage  movement  of  today  is  an  endeavor  to  regain,  not 
the  supremacy  which  woman  once  enjoyed,  but  to  acquire 
equal  rights  with  man  in  all  the  walks  of  life. 

As  I  wrote  to  you  from  England,  I  arrived  in  London  on 
the  day  of  the  great  Woman  Suffrage  parade.  It  was  on  a 
Saturday  afternoon.  Ten  thousand  women  in  line,  and  many 
times  that  number  watching  the  procession  from  the  Thames 
Embankment  to  Albert  Hall.  It  was  also  my  fortune  to  see 
the  second  great  demonstration,  a  few  days  later,  in  Hyde 
Park,  where  I  was  one  of  nearly  half  a  million  people  con- 
gregated around  the  temporary  stands  put  up  for  the  women 
speakers. 

It  is  not  only  in  the  English  speaking  world  that  the 
women  are  clamoring  for  political  recognition.  In  Germany, 
too,  there  is  an  awakening  of  woman,  as  it  is  called ;  while 
in  France,  under  the  name  of  Le  Feminisme,  the  suffrage 
movement  commands  a  respectable  following. 


It  seems  to  me  that  the  best  way  to  lead  up  to  the  discussion 
of  this  subject,  is  for  me  to  tell  you'  of  the  thoughts  which 
came  to  me  as  I  watched  the  women  tramping,  tramping 
through  the  London  streets,  and  massing  in  great  numbers 
in  Hyde  Park  on  that  summer  afternoon,  to  demand  votes 
for  women.  But  before  doing  so,  I  wish  to  present,  briefly, 
of  course,  the  usual  arguments  advanced  for  and  against 
Woman  Suffrage. 

It  is  argued  by  those  who  oppose  the  movement,  that  woman 
is  intellectually  and  morally  inferior  to  man.  This  is  not  urged 
to  offend  woman,  nor  in  the  spirit  of  boasting  on  the  part 
of  man,  but  as  a  matter  of  observation  and  experience.  This 
contention  is  based  on  the  fundamental  difference  between 
the  sexes,  a  difference  which  lies  in  the  child-bearing  capacity 
of  woman.  Every  woman  is,  if  not  actively,  at  least  poten- 
tially, a  mother,  and  this  physiological  distinction  unfits  the 
woman  for  much  of  the  work  of  the  world.  In  reply  to  this 
it  may  be  admitted  that  while  men  and  women  are  different 
mentally  as  well  as  physically,  the  difference  does  not  spell 
inferiority  for  the  woman.  The  chemist  and  the  artist  have 
not  the  same  kind  of  mind,  but  it  does  not  follow  that  the 
one  is  inferior  to  the  other.  Shakespeare  and  Darwin  had 
totally  different  intellectual  powers,  yet  we  would  not  say 
that  a  poet  is  inferior  or  superior  to  a  scientist.  As  it  has 
been  suggested,  the  eye  and  the  ear  are  different,  but  neither 
is  inferior  or  superior  to  the  other. 

Moreover,  it  is  with  the  brain  as  it  is  with  the  muscles  of 
the  body.  The  blacksmith  has  stronger  muscles ;  he  is  con- 
stantly using  his  arm.  For  long  centuries  it  has  been  forbid- 
den to  woman  to  use  her  brain.  In  religion,  St.  Paul  told 
her  to  keep  silent,  that  is  to  say,  not  to  indulge  in  think- 
ing; in  the  state,  Napoleon  Bonaparte  sent  Madame  de  Stael 
into  exile  for  using  her  brain.  Two  powerful  men,  St.  Paul 
and  Napoleon,  made  it  a  crime  for  a  woman  to  think.  It  is 
true  that  religion  also  forbids  the  exercise  of  the  masculine 
brain,  but  fortunately  for  man,  he  has  other  opportunities 
for  mental  exercise.  And  if  commerce,  education  and  politics 
had  imitated  the  example  of  religion  and  placed  a  premium 
on  intellectual  indolence,  there  would  have  been  no  brain  in 


the  world,  masculine  or  feminine,  worth  speaking  of. 

It  is  also  true  that  wherever  there  has  been  an  opportunity 
the  brain  of  woman  has  responded  quite  as  readily  as  that  of 
man.  A  Bertha  Von  Suttner  in  Germany  creates  the  highest 
kind  of  imaginative  literature,  serious  and  telling,  on  the 
salient  problems  of  the  day,  and  in  France,  a  Madame  Curie 
discovers  radium.  Boys  and  girls  are  subject  to  the  same 
law  of  heredity,  but  while  the  boys  have  had  opportunities  to 
develop  mentally  through  exercise,  the  girls  have  not, — to  the 
same  extent. 

A  second  objection  to  woman  suffrage  is  that,  political  life 
will  hurt  woman.  According  to  Nietzsche,  the  highest  pre- 
occupation of  woman  ought  to  be  beauty.  She  must  shun 
even  the  intellectual  life  if  it  brings  wrinkles  to  her  face,  or 
dimness  to  her  eyes.  "Men  may  lose  their  beliefs  in  the 
church,"  argues  Renan,  "but  let  us  not  disturb  a  woman's 
faith,  for  what  is  there  more  beautiful  than  a  pretty  hand 
making  the  sign  of  the  cross  ?"  But  to  speak  seriously,  politics 
will  hurt  woman,  as  it  has  hurt  man.  But  does  not  business 
with  its  strain  and  scramble  hurt,  too?  Does  not  the  factory, 
the  public  restaurant,  the  department  store,  the  wine-shop, 
where  she  is  employed  as  barmaid,  hurt  woman?  If  woman 
may  enter  into  competition  with  man  in  market  and  factory 
without  losing  her  "charm,"  she  may  succeed  in  protecting 
herself  from  any  serious  harm  also  in  politics.  Of  course, 
some  people  think,  Emerson,  for  instance,  that  woman  will 
help  -politics  more  than  politics  will  hurt  woman ;  but  this 
is  only  a  guess,  and  we  are  dealing  with  arguments. 

Another  objection  is  that  Woman  Suffrage  will  compel  the 
women  to  neglect  their  homes,  that  it  will  rob  the  home  of 
her  presence  and  interest.  Mr.  Elihu  Root,  President  Roose- 
velt's secretary,  used  that  at  the  constitutional  convention  at 
Albany  as  his  reason  for  voting  against  an  amendment  to  strike 
out  the  word  "male"  from  the  constitution  of  the  State  of  New 
York.  But  if  the  vote  does  not  take  the  laborer  away  from  his 
factory,  or  the  farmer  from  his  fields,  or  the  musician  from 
his  instruments,  or  the  artist  from  his  atelier,  why  should  it 
take  the  woman  away  from  her  parlor,  or  kitchen,  or  nursery 
or  school? 


There  remains  one  other,  and  perhaps  the  strongest  objec- 
tion against  woman  suffrage  which  we  have  the  time 
to  consider:  The  sole  object  of  woman,  it  is  said,  is  and 
ought  to  be,  marriage.  "Everything  in  the  life  of  a  woman," 
writes  Nietzsche  again,  "has  one  solution — childbirth."  But, 
as  society  is  constituted,  twenty  per  cent  of  the  women  do 
not  marry.  If  marriage  is  the  one  solution  for  all  women, 
why  are  there  millions  of  single  women?  As  there  are  more 
women  than  men  in  nearly  all  communities,  only  under  a 
system  of  polygamy  can  all  women  become  wives,  or  find 
their  salvation  in  childbirth.  What  then  is  the  worth  of  a 
solution  which  is  not  a  solution?  If  marriage  is  the  only 
end  and  object  of  a  woman's  existence,  why  are  they  not  all 
married?  And  how  can  they  be,  even  if  they  were  all  willing, 
or  fit  to  become  mothers?  Besides,  are  there  not  already 
more  children  born  than  society  can  do  justice  to  with 
its  present  resources  or  knowledge?  Do  we  improve  the 
race  by  compelling,  as  it  were,  an  increase  in  the  birth-rate? 
In  the  business  world,  no  man  is  given  a  higher  trust  until 
he  has  proved  his  ability  to  do  well  what  has  already  been 
entrusted  to  him.  Before  we  demand  more  children,  or  re- 
sort to  measures  to  increase  their  number,  let  society  show 
its  ability  to  care  properly  for  those  already  born. 

Compulsory  marriage,  even  if  desirable,  is  not  possible, 
seeing  that,  under  prevailing  conditions,  it  would  mean  a  poly- 
gamous society.  Marriage  then,  is  not  a  solution  of  the  woman 
question.  It  is  like  saying  "Here's  a  building  which  has  been 
put  up  to  provide  for  the  women,"  but  the  size  of  the  build- 
ing makes  it  clear  that  it  was  not  meant  to  provide  for  all  the 
women.  It  really  leaves  millions  of  women  unprovided  for. 

And  why  has  woman  only  one  object  in  life,  while  man  has 
several ? 

Let  us  now  briefly  review  the  arguments  put  forth  by  the 
suffragettes.  "A  woman  is  a  citizen,  and  is  therefore  entitled 
to  a  vote."  Not  necessarily.  I  am  a  citizen,  but  if  I  have 
not  registered  I  cannot  vote.  Am  I  not  still  a  citizen?  Yes, 
but  for  a  technical  reason  I  am  debarred  from  voting.  Govern- 

6 


ment  is  an  adjustment,  and  as  such  it  has  nothing  to  do  with 
natural  rights  or  abstract  principles.  What  it  considers  bene- 
ficial to  the  state,  it  allows,  what  it  considers  detrimental 
it  forbids.  The  people  living  in  the  district  of  Columbia  are 
Americans  too,  but  for  a  technical  reason  they  cannot  vote. 
A  man  at  the  age  of  twenty  is  just  as  liable  to  prosecution, 
and  is  just  as  much  entitled  to  the  protection  of  the  govern- 
ment, as  another  at  forty,  yet  the  former  cannot  vote.  It  is 
merely  a  matter  of  arrangement.  In  reality,  or  ideally  speak- 
ing, universal  suffrage  should  entitle  everybody,  male  and 
female,  old  and  young,  native  and  alien,  to  a  vote.  That  would 
be  universal  suffrage.  But  as  a  matter  of  government  policy, 
the  suffrage  is  variously  limited  in  various  countries,  accord- 
ing to  the  will  of  the  people.  In  Norway,  women  with  a  cer- 
tain income  are  entitled  to  the  vote ;  in  England  a  man  must  be 
a  rent-payer  before  he  can  vote ;  it  is  not  enough  to  be  a  citizen, 
he  must  be  a  rent-paying  citizen.  And  the  English  women,  in 
demanding  the  same  privileges  that  the  men  enjoy,  are  really 
asking  the  vote,  not  for  all  women,  but  only  for  rent-paying 
women.  It  follows,  ladies,  that  it  is  not  enough  to  be  a  citizen 
to  have  a  vote.  And  if  a  state  can  impose  property  conditions, 
or  age  limitations,  it  can,  if  it  considers  it  advisable,  also 
require  that  the  voter,  besides  being  a  rent-payer  and  of  age, 
shall  also  be  of  a  certain  sex. 

The  next  argument  is  that,  to  grant  the  franchise  to  the 
illiterate  immigrant,  the  Italian,  the  negro,  or  even  to  the 
very  scum  of  society,  and  withhold  it  from  woman,  is  to  offer 
her  an  insult,  or  to  place  a  false  valuation  upon  her.  This 
is  not  a  strong  argument:  Votes  have  nothing  in  common 
with  values.  The  negro  is  not  given  a  vote  because  he  is 
intelligent  or  moral.  The  white  man  is  not  given  the  vote 
because  of  his  character  or  intellect.  From  the  point  of  view 
of  intellect  and  character  perhaps  half  of  the  voters  are  not 
fit  to  vote.  But  the  vote  is  not  supposed  to  represent  moral 
or  intellectual  worth.  Before  I  have  finished  I  will  tell  you 
why,  for  instance,  the  negro  is  given  the  right  to  vote.  I 
may  just  as  well  tell  it  now  :  Because  he  is  a  man ;  and  before 
the  lecture  is  over  you  will  know  why  it  is  that  a  man  can 
vote  and  a  woman  can  not. 


If  the  vote  represented  worth,  however,  an  Emerson  or  a 
Lincoln  ought  to  have  more  votes  than  his  gardener  or  his 
coachman.  It  was  this  mistaken  idea  which  led  Carlyle  to 
condemn  our  democracy,  because  "it  made  the  vote  of  Judas 
Iscariot  as  good  as  the  vote  of  Jesus  Christ."  But  votes 
and  values  are  two  totally  different  things.  The  King  of 
England  and  the  peers  are  all  worthy  men,  but  they 
cannot  vote.  We  have  a  very  good  example  showing 
the  difference  between  votes  and  worth  in  our  own  country: 
Carl  Schurz  was  in  every  sense  of  the  word  a  distinguished 
American  who  served  his  country  in  various  capacities.  He 
was  just  as  worthy  to  be  nominated  for  the  presidency  as 
Taft  or  Bryan.  But  a  technical  reason  made  it  impossible 
for  him  even  to  aspire  to  the  office.  He  was  not  a  native 
born  citizen.  It  was  not  a  question  of  worth  at  all,  it  was 
simply  a  question  of  law  and  expediency. 

Then  there  is  this  other  argument:  No  taxation  without 
representation.  "I  am  a  woman,"  writes  one  of  the  suffra- 
gettes, modifying  slightly  the  words  which  Shakespeare  puts  in 
the  mouth  of  one  of  his  characters.  "I  am  a  woman.  Hath 
not  a  woman  eyes  ?  Hath  not  a  woman  hands,  organs,  dimen- 
sions, senses,  affections,  passions?  Fed  with  the  same  food, 
hurt  with  the  same  weapons,  subject  to  the  same  diseases, 
healed  by  the  same  means,  cooled  and  warmed  by  the  same  win- 
ter and  summer  as  a  man  is  ?  If  you  pierce  us  do  we  not  bleed  ? 
If  you  tickle  us  do  we  not  laugh  ?  If  you  poison  us  do  we  not 
die  ?  And  if  you  tax  us,  shall  we  not  vote?"  No,  taxation  with- 
out representation,  like  universal  suffrage,  is  a  sonorous  but  an 
empty  phrase.  We  must  not  accept  a  stone  when  we  are  ask- 
ing for  bread.  A  big  mouthful  of  sound  cannot  take  the 
place  of  truth.  The  truth  is  that  governments,  as  already 
suggested,  are  guided  by  policy  and  expediency,  and  not  by 
absolute  and  ideal  pronouncements.  As  a  matter  of  actual 
occurrence,  the  state  is  always  collecting  taxes  of  parties  who 
have  no  representation.  The  German  or  the  Frenchman  who 
comes  over  to  build  a  factory  here,  has  to  pay  taxes  whether 
or  not  he  becomes  a  voter.  The  American  who  has  property 
here,  but  lives  abroad,  has  to  pay  taxes,  although  he  loses 
his  franchise;  the  minors  are  not  represented,  but  their  prop- 


erty  is  taxed;  and  there  are  many  who  are  represented  but 
who  have  no  taxes  to  pay;  while  others,  still,  have  property, 
vote  regularly,  but  pay  no  taxes.  Considerable  property  in 
this  country,  standing  in  the  name  of  a  bishop  or  an  arch- 
bishop, is  exempt  from  taxation,  although  the  holder  of  the 
property  is  a  voter.  It  is  the  will  of  the  majority.  You  and 
I  protest  against  it  with  indignation.  Yet  the  whole  thing 
is  merely  a  matter  of  government  policy. 

Susan  B.  Anthony,  one  of  the  noblest  of  American  women, — 
brave,  sane,  generous, — in  an  address  to  the  jury  called  to 
try  her  for  having  violated  the  law  of  New  York  by  voting, 
declared  that  she  was  not  bound  to  obey  laws  in  the  making 
of  which  she  had  no  share.  The  plea  is  too  ideal.  It  won't 
work  in  this  every-day  world  of  ours.  What  would  we  say 
to  a  minor,  or  to  a  foreigner  who  refused  to  submit  to  the 
laws  of  the  land  on  the  ground  that  he  was  not  consulted? 

Well,  what  then  is  the  reason  that  woman  is  not  permitted 
political  equality  with  man?  Now  that  we  have  glanced  at 
the  pros  and  cons,  let  us  place  ourselves  on  the  right  track 
for  a  thorough  grasp  of  the  subject.  I  promised  to  tell  you 
the  thoughts  which  came  to  me  as  I  watched  the  monster 
demonstration  in  London  for  equal  rights.  The  demonstra- 
tion impressed  me  profoundly.  I  thought  it  pathetic.  And 
in  my  mind's  eye,  I  saw  the  awful,  awful  obstacles,  almost 
insurmountable,  which  women  have  to  encounter  in  their 
struggle  for  recognition.  It  seemed  to  me,  as  I  stood  in  Hyde 
Park  and  looked  upon  that  sea  of  women,  that  I  saw  before  me, 
figuratively  speaking,  a  glorious  building,  magnificently 
equipped,  solid  and  spacious.  Over  the  entrance  of  the  edi- 
fice, white  and  shining  in  the  sun,  was  inscribed  the  word 
CIVILIZATION.  The  door  of  the  building  was  closed — closed 
to  the  women,  who  in  great  numbers  and  loudly  were  knock- 
ing to  be  admitted.  But  the  door  would  not  open.  It  was 
guarded  by  men  from  the  inside.  And  it  occurred  to  me  that 
the  great  and  stupendous  edifice  which  the  men  were  pro- 
tecting against  the  women,  was  the  gift  of  woman  to  man. 

If  history,  or  rather  evolution,  teaches  anything,  it  is  this : 
Civilization  is  the  work  of  woman.  Woman,  however,  must 
not  take  too  much  credit  to  herself  for  this,  because  it  was 


necessity  which  imposed  upon  her  the  labor  of  civilization. 
She  had  no  other  alternative. 

To  discover  the  foundations  of  a  building  we  do  not  look 
up  to  the  ceiling,  or  to  the  rising  walls ;  we  seek  for  them  in 
the  dark  ground.  In  the  same  way,  it  is  by  going  back  to  re- 
mote and  primitive  times,  it  is  by  digging  in  the  dark  past  that 
we  come  to  the  origins  of  civilization.  Long,  long  ago,  there 
were  no  men,  only  males,  and  no  woman,  only  females.  This 
was  the  age  of  the  wood  and  the  swamp.  The  human  had  not 
yet  outgrown  the  brute.  It  was  the  age  of  raw  food  and  wild 
desire.  In  those  very  distant  times,  the  male  went  after  the 
female  as  he  went  after  his  food.  There  was  as  yet  no  estab- 
lished sex  relation.  What  relation  there  was  between  man  and 
woman  partook  of  the  character  of  untamed  nature. 

After  a  chance  meeting  with  a  female,  the  man  left  her 
and  went  away  to  his  accustomed  haunts  in  pursuit  of  new 
adventure.  His  meeting  with  a  woman  made  not  the  least 
difference  to  him.  It  did  not  alter  the  routine  of  his  existence. 
No  new  emotion,  or  sense  of  obligation,  was  born  in  him  as 
a  result  of  this  chance  meeting.  But  with  the  woman,  the 
whole  world  was  transformed  from  that  moment.  The  quiver 
of  maternity  came  upon  her.  She  is  going  to  become  a  mother ! 
A  new  being  is  about  to  enter  into  her  life.  A  child  will 
soon  smile  in  her  arms.  And  then  there  will  be  a  new  heaven 
and  a  new  earth. 

But  let  us  keep  to  the  prose  of  it  as  long  as  we  can.  As 
soon  as  the  female  discovered  the  condition'  she  was  in,  in- 
stinctively she  sought  shelter.  She  slipped  into  a  cave.  The 
beginning  of  the  home!  Here  she  awaited  the  arrival 
of  her  child,  and  while  doing  so  she  busied  herself  with 
a  thousand  preparations  for  her  guest.  It  is  sublime !  I  said 
let  us  keep  to  the  prose  of  it,  but  it  is  difficult  to  do  so.  The 
cave  mother,  throbbing  with  expectation  and  taxing  her  mental 
powers  to  the  utmost  to  protect  herself  and  her  treasure 
against  the  inhospitable  elements  in  that  wild,  dark,  desolate 
day!  See  her  gathering  leaves  to  make  a  soft  bed  for  the 
little  one,  and  rolling  huge  stones  against  the  mouth  of  the 
cave  for  protection  against  man  and  beast.  The  need  for 
food  during  the  days  and  weeks  that  she  would  be  unable  to 

10 


go  in  search  for  it  suggested  to  her  the  idea  of  laying  up  in 
store  a  sufficient  quantity  to  last  for  some  time.  There  is 
the  beginning  of  modern  industry,  the  beginnning  also  of 
capital,  to  which  civilization  is  so  much  indebted.  The  cave 
of  the  primitive  mother  is  the  foundation  in  the  dark  ground 
of  that  splendid  edifice  to  which  I  imagined  the  women  in 
Hyde  Park  were  demanding  admission. 

But  let  us  watch  the  cave  mother:  As  she  went  forth  in 
search  of  provisions,  she  kept  on  the  alert,  her  brain  was  like 
a  bee-hive,  every  faculty  was  taxed  in  the  pursuit  of  food  and 
safety  for  herself  and  her  offspring.  In  these  excursions  she 
learned  of  plants  and  herbs,  of  roots  and  berries,  and  discov- 
ered their  properties.  This  is  the  beginning  of  the  science  of 
medicine. 

Gradually  we  see  the  little  patch  of  ground  about  the  cave 
cleared.  The  stones  and  weeds  have  disappeared.  The  land  is 
cultivated.  There  is  the  beginning  of  agriculture,  the  greatest 
conquest  of  the  race.  The  earth  is  taught  by  woman  to  do  for 
her  children  what  she  as  a  mother  is  doing  for  hers.  Woman 
taught  the  earth  to  become  a  mother  too,  and  to  feed  her 
children  from  her  breast.  The  hard  and  rugged  soil  blossoms. 
The  wild  becomes  a  garden.  The  swamp  changes  into  a  farm. 
Agriculture  is  the  invention  or  discovery  of  woman — the 
woman  with  child.  In  after  years,  misled  by  theology  and 
blinded  by  prejudice,  man  thanked  the  gods  for  the  gifts  he 
had  received  from  woman. 

When  her  child,  born  in  the  cave,  was  old  enough  to  under- 
stand, she  led  it  by  the  hand  into  the  light  and  communicated 
to  it  all  her  knowledge;  what  the  dangers  were,  and  how  to 
escape  them;  which  berries  were  nutritious  and  which  pois- 
onous ;  how  to  coax  the  earth  for  food,  and  how  to  overcome 
obstacles.  There  is  the  beginning  of  education.  While  the 
male  is  still  wandering  in  the  woods,  foot-loose  and  aimless, 
the  female  has  developed  into  an  instructor,  has  begun  the  life 
of  altruism,  and  has  her  first  pupil.  The  cave  is  not  only  a 
home,  it  has  also  become  a  school,  and  the  woman  is  both 
housekeeper  and  teacher.  Is  it  not  wonderful? 

But  the  cave  mother  not  only  imparted  to  her  offspring 
her  knowledge  of  roots  and  herbs,  of  animals  and  dangers, 

11 


but  she  also  imparted  to  the  new  being  her  hopes,  her  fears, 
her  aspirations,  her  longings, — her  opinions,  her  interpreta- 
tions of  the  phenomena  of  nature — in  short,  her  beliefs,  her 
religion.  She  is  also  the  first  priestess.  She  is  the  founder 
of  religions.  Buddha,  Moses,  Christ,  sat  at  her  feet  and 
learned  from  her  all  the  things  they  taught,  but  like  ungrate- 
ful children,  they  despised  the  humble  source  of  their  wis- 
dom, and  declared  they  had  received  it  from  on  high. 

As  already  intimated,  it  was  necessity  which  imposed  upon 
woman  the  task  of  civilization.  The  cry  of  the  child  for 
food  spurred  the  mother  into  indefatigable  activity,  and  en- 
hanced her  mental  and  physical  powers.  Necessity  is  the 
mother  of  invention.  Love  for  her  offspring,  fatherless  and 
exposed,  made  her  a  genius.  She  worked  miracles.  She 
made  nature  bend  to  her  will.  The  power  and  puissance  of 
love !  But  it  also  calls  attention  to  the  brain-sweat  of  woman. 
Thus  was  mother- wit  born  and  developed — mother-wit,  which 
is  the  beginning  of  all  culture  and  civilization. 

Mr.  Karl  Pearson  finds  in  the  folk-lore  of  the  German  and 
Scandinavian  peoples  a  recognition  of  the  role  which  the  child- 
bearing  woman  has  played  as  the  world's  civilizer.  The 
woman  about  to  be  a  mother  is  represented  in  this  primitive 
literature,  as  surrounded  by  demons,  howling  and  gnashing 
their  teeth  with  rage.  What  and  who  are  these  demons? 
They  represent  the  hostile  elements  of  nature  against  which 
the  cave-mother  had  to  contend,  and  which  she  had  to  over- 
come, before  she  could  bring  forth  a  new  life  into  the  world. 
The  real  demons  have  been  conquered,  and  only  their  names 
linger  in  the  people's  songs  and  folk-lore.  In  this  same  popular 
literature  we  are  told  how  a  spell  may  be  thrown  over  these 
evil  spirits  haunting  the  bedside  of  the  mother  and  the  cradle. 
And  the  means  suggested,  namely,  the  eating  of  a  certain  herb, 
the  breaking  of  the  soil,  etc.,  are  the  very  things  which  woman 
in  her  struggle  against  great  odds  did  to  preserve  her  life 
and  that  of  her  child.  What  was  real  in  her  life  became 
poetry  and  legend  in  the  literature  of  the  race. 

Let  us  note  the  next  step  in  the  evolution  or  progress  of 
civilization.  Practically,  the  cave-woman  reared  her  offspring, 
gave  it  what  education  she  could,  cultivated  the  soil,  added 

12 


to  the  comforts  of  the  underground  home,  and  won  com- 
parative safety  for  herself  and  her  little  family,  without 
any  help  from  man.  He  was  still  too  fond  of  his  wild  life 
to  tie  himself  down  to  any  place  or  person.  And  it  was  not 
until  she  had  succeeded  in  making  the  cave,  or  the  hut,  attrac- 
tive enough  for  him,  that  he  left  off  his  nomadic  existence  and 
sought  her  society.  But  immediately,  almost,  the  comradeship 
with  the  woman  and  the  child  began  to  tell  upon  the  uncouth 
manners  and  ungoverned  desires  of  man.  The  instinct  of  pa- 
ternity was  born  in  him.  The  woman  who  had  taught  the  earth 
how  to  become  a  mother,  also  taught  man  how  to  become  a 
father. 

But  there  is  one  more  stage  in  this  evolution  to  which  I 
must  now  call  your  attention.  As  the  underground  cave  im- 
proved into  a  hut,  and  that  again  into  a  home,  it  became  an 
object  of  envy  to  those  who  had  no  place  of  their  own,  or 
who  coveted  the  better  homes  of  their  neighbors.  The  hunter 
of  beasts  for  his  food  now  went  after  his  fellows  to  seize  their 
savings  by  killing  or  driving  away  their  legitimate  owners. 
This  was  the  age  of  war  and  burglary.  Might  was  right. 
Then  it  was  that  the  man  in  the  cave  made  himself  indispens- 
able to  the  woman  and  the  children.  Had  it  not  been  for  her 
little  ones  the  woman  too  would  have  learned  and  practiced 
the  art  of  war.  But  maternity  saved  the  mother  of  children 
from  becoming  also  the  slayer  of  children. 

As"  she  could  not  herself  fight,  she  needed  a  protector.  It 
was  then  that  the  man  stepped  to  the  front,  and  the  woman 
fell  behind.  She  created  the  hearth  and  the  home,  but  it  was 
the  man  who  saved  them  from  destruction  by  his  strength 
and  valor.  In  time,  the  man  said  to  the  woman,"!  am  your 
savior.  I  risk  my  life  to  protect  you  and  yours  from  death 
and  the  enemy.  Without  me  you  are  helpless."  And  as  there 
is  nothing  free  in  this  world,  the  woman  had  to  pay  for  the 
protection  of  the  man  by  making  him  ruler  in  the  house.  He 
became  the  Altvater,  the  elder  and  the  warrior.  She  became 
his  subject  and  servant.  Not  only  did  the  man  conquer  the 
enemy,  but  he  also  conquered  the  woman  and  her  children. 
Nature  favors  the  strong.  The  weak  are  spared  on  condition 
that  they  submit  and  obey. 

13 


The  modern  state,  being  modeled  after  the  family,  is  based 
on  force.  This  is  stated,  not  as  a  criticism  or  condemnation, 
but  as  an  admitted  fact.  Perhaps  it  was  the  only  way  that 
civilization  could  have  been  saved.  At  any  rate,  every  country 
in  the  world  was  conquered  and  taken  possession  of  in  pre- 
cisely the  same  way  and  by  the  same  means  that  the  man  con- 
quered the  woman  and  set  himself  up  as  the  owner  and  ruler 
of  the  family.  To  this  day  it  is  only  through  force,  for  in- 
stance, that  the  French  can  keep  France  for  themselves,  the 
English,  England,  or  the  Germans,  Germany.  Our  own  navy 
and  army  help  to  protect  our  possessions  on  this  continent — 
possessions  which  we  seized  by  force  of  arms.  It  follows  that 
modern  society  owes  its  preservation,  its  order,  its  peace,  its 
prosperity,  to  its  ability  to  fight.  This  is  a  very  important 
consideration  to  which  I  call  the  attention  of  the  suffragettes. 
I  am  neither  commending,  at  present,  nor  condemning  the 
role  which  physical  force  has  played  in  the  past,  and  is  still 
playing  today.  I  am  merely  pointing  out,  without  comments, 
one  way  or  another,  how  indispensable  physical  strength  has 
been  to  woman  in  the  past,  and  how  dependent  even  now 
modern  society  is  upon  force. 

Ladies,  force  has  to  be  reckoned  with.  But  is  it  just  that 
the  strong  should  rule  both  in  the  home  and  in  the  state  ?  Sup- 
pose, we  say  it  is  not;  force  can  afford  to  ignore  our  opinion. 
Ideally  speaking,  strength  should  have  no  advantage  over 
weakness,  but  we  are  not,  as  yet,  living  in  an  ideal  world, 
and  do  not  know  how  soon  we  will,  if  we  ever  do;  and  as 
long  as  force  continues  to  count  in  the  affairs  of  government 
— what  chance  is  there  for  you?  The  men  who  can  sail  the 
ships,  load  the  cannons,  dig  the  trenches,  tunnel  the  mountains, 
shoulder  the  guns  and  grapple  with  the  enemy,  will  rule.  You, 
ladies,  are  the  makers  of  the  home,  you  also  made  the  edge 
and  the  butt  of  the  edge  which  was  to  cleave  the  world,  but 
the  driving  force  is  in  the  hammer  which  is  wielded  by  the 
strong  arm  of  man.  Justice  is  a  fine  thing,  but  it  is  helpless 
without  the  hammer,  or  at  best,  very  slow.  Iron  and  blood  are 
not  aesthetic,  but  they  can  make  their  way  in  the  world.  Let 
justice  prevail !  Let  it.  But  Austria's  idea  of  justice  and 
Bosnia's  are  not  the  same.  If  there  is  any  justice  in  France 

14 


today,  if  there  is  a  Magna  Charta  in  England,  if  a  republic 
in  America — they  have  all  been  wrested  by  force.  What 
chance  is  there  then  for  women?  Again,  let  me  say  that  I 
am  not  approving  the  course  of  evolution,  or  the  state  to 
which  it  has  brought  us.  As  an  artist  and  a  moral  being,  I 
protest  against  nature  for  its  coddling  of  the  strong  and  its 
brutality  to  the  weak.  Nature  gives  man  decided  advantages, 
and  starts  woman  in  her  career  with  a  handicap.  The  very 
fact  that  women  are  asking  for  the  suffrage,  instead  of  taking 
it  proves  their  helplessness  in  a  society  where  force  is  the 
dernier  resort — the  last  argument. 

Suppose  women  were  presented  with  the  suffrage,  since 
they  cannot  take  it, — would  they  be  able  to  keep  it  ?  Besides,  if 
the  women  did  not  vote  as  the  men  wanted  them  to;  if  they 
voted  to  please  themselves  and  to  advance  their  own  interests  ;  if 
they  voted  man  out  of  office  and  privilege — how  would  they 
enforce  their  will  in  a  community  that  has  in  reserve  iron- 
clads and  gattling  guns? 

But  this  is  another  way  of  saying  that,  never  mind  who 
has  the  suffrage,  the  strong  will  rule.  As  long  as  we  live 
in  a  military  society,  even  with  the  suffrage,  woman  will  be 
politically  the  creature  of  man. 

Of  course,  I  could  have  handled  this  subject  in  a  purely 
emotional  or  sentimental  way,  but  it  has  been  my  desire  to 
suggest  problems  rather  than  to  express  opinions.  Do  I 
mean  to  say  then,  that  women  are  wasting  their  energies  in 
seeking  political  equality?  Yes,  as  long  as  modern  society 
continues  to  be  a  military  organization.  May  not  women, 
however,  by  entering  political  life,  help  to  shift  society  from 
might  to  right?  I  shall  say  a  word  on  that  before  I  close. 

It  appears  then,  from  what  has  been  presented,  that  even  if 
woman  is  given  the  right  to  vote,  she  will  not  be  able  to 
exercise  it  freely,  which  is  equal  to  saying,  she  will  not  be 
able  to  keep  it.  There  are,  as  already  stated,  more  women  in 
a  community  than  men.  This  may  place  the  government  en- 
tirely in  the  hands  of  women.  Of  course,  the  women  may 
continue  to  vote  for  the  men,  but  it  is  to  be  supposed  that  they 
will  use  the  franchise  to  advance  the  cause  of  woman,  to  right 
their  wrongs  and  to  extend  their  influence  in  the  political  line. 

15 


If  they  vote  then  with  sex  consciousness,  and  there  should 
come  to  be  formed  a  Woman's  party,  the  men  will  be  driven 
to  the  state  of  dependence  and  helplessness  in  which  the 
women  find  themselves  at  present.  And  what  will  happen? 
The  positions  will  be  reversed.  Whereas,  at  present,  it  is 
the  women  who  are  doing  the  complaining  against  unjust 
discriminations,  against  petty  persecutions,  against  absurd  con- 
ventions which  defame  the  woman  and  exonerate  the  man. 
against  lower  wages,  and  legal  disqualifications,  —  under 
Woman's  Suffrage,  the  men  will  become  the  complainants — 
with  this  difference,  however :  They  will  not  simply  plead  for  a 
change,  they  will  make  a  change.  There  is,  then,  this  tremend- 
ous difference  between  man  and  woman.  Even  with  all,  or 
with  at  least  most  of  the  legislative  and  executive  offices  in  her 
hands,  she  will  not  be  able  to  keep  them  without  man's  consent. 
Now,  you  know  why  the  negro  is  given  a  vote.  He  is  a 
man.  He  represents  the  ultimate  argument — force.  If  a  gov- 
ernment which  is  created  by  the  consent  of  the  governed — and 
a  feminine  government  can  only  be  created  by  the  consent 
of  man — fails  to  give  satisfaction,  it  is  overthrown.  If 
Ithe  women  in  power  fail  to  please  the  men,  fail  to  vote  for  them 
or  with  them,  they  will  be  ousted  from  power.  Creatures  of 
the  consent  of  man,  they  will  submit  to  his  will  or  abdicate. 
Yes,  ladies,  force  has  to  be  reckoned  with.  In  a  military 
society  you  have  no  chance. 

But  I  have  not  finished  yet:  For  a  long  time  after  woman 
had  lost  her  property  and  her  political  rights,  she  continued  to 
be  a  force  in  primitive  society,  that  is  to  say,  there  was  still 
a  sphere  for  her  from  which  she  was  too  strong  to  be  ousted. 
Woman  still  had  one  domain  left  in  which  she  had  no  peer. 
This  was  the  domain  of  religion.  The  care  of  the  family  altars 
was  still  hers.  As  high  priestess  she  was  held  in  sincere 
esteem.  She  continued  to  guard  the  sacred  fires,  and  to  inter- 
pret the  will  of  the  gods  to  mortals. 

Jacob  Grimm,  describing  the  Scandinavian  and  German 
mythologies,  says  that  most  of  the  divinities — the  ones  who 
did  things — were  goddesses.  "These  goddesses,"  he  writes, 
"were  conceived  as  divine  mothers,  traveling  about  and 
visiting  mortals.  From  them  mankind  has  learned  the  busi- 

16 


ness  and  the  arts  of  housekeeping,  as  well  as  agriculture, 
weaving,  spinning,  watching  the  hearth,  sowing  and  reaping. 
The  goddesses  shun  war  and  fighting."  How  came  it  then 
that  even  as  a  goddess  woman  has  been  driven  out  of  the 
pantheon?  It  was  Christianity  which  dethroned  woman  and 
completed  her  subjugation  to  man.  Being  an  Asiatic  faith, 
born  in  the  wilderness  of  Sinai,  Christianity  had  imbibed  all 
the  Oriental  prejudice  against  woman.  For  the  married 
woman  especially,  the  woman  who  with  the  lever  of  maternity 
had  lifted  the  world  out  of  barbarism  into  civilization,  and 
converted  the  earth,  producing  thorns  and  thistles,  into  a  hu- 
man habitation,  Christianity  had  only  disdain.  It  was  a  child- 
bearing  woman,  Eve,  who  had  deprived  the  race  of  paradise; 
it  was  the  woman-mother  who  had  brought  about  this  world 
of  sorrow  and  death,  and  a  non-child-bearing  woman,  the  Vir- 
gin Maria, — will  save  the  world.  Only  to  virgins,  that  is 
to  say,  to  women  who  are  free  from  the  maternal  instinct 
which  created  civilization,  did  the  church  offer  a  career.  Wo- 
man as  mother  helps  to  perpetuate  this  evil  world,  and 
keeps  men  out  of  heaven.  Woman,  in  short,  brings  life,  love, 
joy,  which  rob  us  of  God.  Woman  and  the  world,  or  woman 
and  civilization,  are  synonymous,  and  Christianity,  like  all 
religions  with  a  supernatural  ethic,  has  cursed  the  world.  In 
one  of  the  Aprocryphal  gospels,  Salome  asks  Jesus  how  long 
the  world  will  last,  and  Jesus  answers :  "As  long  as  you 
women  continue  to  bear  children."  Christianity  has  no 
career  for  the  child-bearing  woman.  She  is  the  civilizer; 
she  helps  man  to  become  attached  to  this  world,  which 
is,  of  course,  a  great  wrong  to  God.  Thus  the  woman,  who 
is  mother  of  all  good,  becomes  under  this  Asiatic  teaching, 
man's  tempter. 

One  of  the  reasons  for  the  rapid  spread  of  Christianity  in 
European  society  was  its  partiality  to  man.  Its  divinities  were 
exclusively  masculine.  Its  apostles  and  priests  were  all  men. 
The  only  woman  exalted  was  a  virgin.  The  woman  who 
loved  anyone — husband  or  child — in  the  place  of  God,  was 
another  Eve,  who  must  be  held  in  subjection.  Thus  the  Asi- 
atic religion  placed  a  new  weapon  in  the  hands  of  man  against 
woman.  Here  was  another  reason,  nay,  a  heavenly,  an  in- 

17 


fallible  reason,  why  he  should  rule  over  her.  It  was  the  will 
of  God.  Her  subjection  was  the  curse  of  heaven  upon  her 
for  her  sin  in  the  Garden  of  Eden.  Under  this  regime,  the 
woman  who  had  been  revered  as  priestess  and  divinity,  was 
now  despised  and  persecuted  as  a  sorceress  and  a  witch.  The 
pagan  priestess  became  the  Christian  witch.  And  to  illustrate 
what  a  complete  revulsion  of  feeling  had  taken  place  toward 
woman  after  the  introduction  of  Christianity,  it  will  only  be 
necessary  to  read  of  the  wholesale  burning  of  women  accused 
of  the  impossible,  the  trumped  up  crime  of  witchcraft  in  every 
country  where  the  Gospel  was  preached.  "For  every  one 
man,"  writes  Karl  Pearson,  "fifty  women  were  burned."  It 
makes  us  indignant  even  to  think  of  it. 

But  Christianity  proved  to  be  very  popular  in  Europe,  also 
because  of  its  military  spirit.  The  warlike  tribes  were  prom- 
ised greater  victories,  just  as  Constantine  was,  in  the  name 
of  the  cross.  Christianity  was  equipped  with  a  full  military 
vocabulary.  Its  God  was  the  "God  of  battles,"  who  was  also 
"Lord  of  hosts;"  who  fought  for  his  people,  and  shot  his 
arrows  from  on  high;  who  sat  on  a  throne  and  promised 
thrones  and  crowns  and  glory  to  the  victor.  The  kingdom  of 
heaven,  like  the  kingdoms  of  this  world,  was  to  be  "taken  by 
violence."  Force  received  a  new  endorsement.  It  became  sa- 
cred. While  speaking  of  peace  and  good  will,  the  new  religion 
resorted  to  the  use  of  fire,  the  halter,  and  the  sword  to  extermi- 
nate the  unbeliever.  It  thus  gave  fresh  encouragement  to  the 
principle  of  violence,  and  struck  women,  who  as  goddesses, 
Grimm  says,  "shunned  war  and  fighting,"  an  irreparable  blow. 

In  the  mean  time,  there  is  nothing  really  impossible  in  the 
world.  By  entering  political  life  women  may  succeed  in  com- 
pletely shifting  modern  society  from  its  present  basis  of  force 
to  a  new  and  nobler  foundation,  which,  if  they  do,  their  reign 
will  be  one  of  sweetness  and  light.  But,  hold  on !  With 
force  eliminated,  the  reign  of  man,  too,  if  we  need  any  reign 
at  all,  will  be  equally  ideal.  But  before  we  can  have  a  new 
society,  we  need  a  new  culture  and  a  new  religion,  neither 
of  which  can  come  through  the  ballot.  They  must  come  as 
comes  the  harvest,  after  much  patient  sowing  and  cultivation. 
Women  have  already,  without  the  ballot,  effected  great  re- 

18 


forms.  Slowly  they  have  moved  to  the  front.  The  educa- 
tional forces  have  largely  passed  under  their  control.  As 
teachers  they  are  shaping  the  clay  of  our  future  humanity. 
But  that  is  not  enough.  The  education  must  be  different. 
The  mothers  must  set  up  new  ideals  before  their  children. 
They  must  not  feed  them  on  the  old  books.  They  must  not 
bring  them  up  in  the  old  faiths.  They  must  give  them  a  new 
accent  and  a  new  point  of  view. 

Instead  of  sending  their  little  ones  to  Sunday  school  to  learn 
about  things  which  are  of  no  practical  help  to  them,  and  which 
are  not  true — things  which  are  as  different  from  truth  and 
beauty  and  goodness  as  the  dead  husk  is  from  the  living 
kernel ;  instead  of  exposing  the  child-mind  to  the  degrading 
influence  of  biblical  massacres  and  barbarities,  all  of  which 
contribute  to  introduce  into  the  blood,  so  to  speak,  the  virus 
of  injustice,  hardness  of  heart,  caprice  and  cruelty, — the 
mother  should  see  that  the  intellectual  and  moral  nourishment 
of  the  child  is  as  pure  and  wholesome  as  the  milk  she  herself 
provides  for  the  body. 

As  long  as  the  bible  rules  there  will  be  a  "God  of  Battles" 
in  heaven,  and  a  military  society  on  earth.  To  the  women  de- 
manding equal  rights,  the  priest,  who  blesses  the  sword  which 
the  king  carries,  will  answer,  "The  Powers  that  be  are  ap- 
pointed by  God."  If  God  has  appointed  the  men  to  rule,  what 
chance  is  there  for  the  women? 

And  woman  herself  must  set  an  example  of  independence 
and  rationalism.  If  she  will  fall  upon  her  knees  before  a  man 
because  he  calls  himself  a  priest;  if  the  secrets  which  she 
will  not  whisper  to  her  own  mother,  she  will  pour  into  the 
ears  of  the  priest;  if  she  allows  herself  to  be  imposed  upon 
by  rites  and  forms  and  creeds,  how  can  her  children  be  free? 
Men  are  superstitious  too;  but  how  long  would  they  remain 
so,  if  it  were  not  for  the  example  of  woman?  How  long 
would  the  men  go  to  church  if  the  women  stopped  going? 
How  long  would  the  men  pretend  to  believe  in  the  old  Jewish 
stories  and  Christian  dogmas  if  the  women  did  not  cling  to 
them?  How  long  would  the  church,  which  denies  to  woman 
equal  rights  with  man  even  in  the  church — how  long  would  it 
last  if  the  women  did  not  support  it? 

19 


When  woman  is  rationalized  thfe  world  will  be  emancipated. 
The  sway  of  superstition  will  be  over.  Force  and  war,  like 
error  and  fear,  will  be  replaced  by  reason.  Reason,  now  on 
the  cross  of  superstition,  will  go  forth  to  heal  and  bless  all 
mankind.  When  our  mothers  are  free,  we  shall  all  be  free. 
When  they  are  sane  and  brave,  the  sword  shall  become  a 
ploughshare,  the  .warrior  shall  be  no  more,  and  the  priest  shall 
throw  away  the  keys  of  heaven  and  hell,  to  become  a  lover  and 
a  father. 

The  cave  woman  leading  her  child  by  the  hand !  It  is  woman 
leading  the  world  by  the  hand.  When  the  world  was  a  child, 
woman  carried  it  in  her  arms. 

Let  the  women  who  have  done  so  much  for  humanity;  who 
have  invented  love,  and  created  the  home;  who  caused  the 
bush  to  blossom,  and  made  the  savage  a  father — let  them  also 
give  us  a  religion  which  shall  be  in  spirit  as  gentle  and  yet 
as  irresistible  as  the  sunbeam.  A  religion  whose  mission  shall 
be  pacific,  whose  record  shall  be  bloodless,  whose  altars  shall 
be  human  hearts,  whose  sanctuaries  the  home  and  the  school, 
whose  Bible  shall  be  science,  whose  heaven,  the  here  and  the 
now,  and  whose  divinities  shall  be  men  and  women ! 


Believe  me,  ladies,  you  will  never  attain  full 
emancipation  until  you  open  your  minds  to  a 
serious  criticism  of  the  Christian  creed.  With 
what  eagerness  you  are  beginning  to  examine 
your  social  environment,  your  privileges,  your 
rights,  your  possibilities.  One  hears  the  break- 
ing of  a  thousand  chains  that  once  shackled  the 
activities  of  women.  But  you  reserve  one  place 
of  voluntary  enslavement.  There,  if  nowhere 
else,  you  surrender  your  claim  to  live  out  your 
own  life.  This  place  is  the  church. — F.  J.  Gould. 


20 

.-  • 


.vlOSANCEtfj- 

— 


